New school shooting...If only America had fewer guns....

[DoNotRefill]

" Her name is Aysegul Candir and she teaches English as a Second Language at Bramalea Secondary School. But on Friday, her life came to a sudden and tragic end after she was shot in the parking lot of the campus at around 11:30am.

The 47-year-old teacher was confronted by a man police say is her husband, and he's alleged to have pulled a gun on his wife and shot her in the head.

He then sped off, leaving a school in chaos. Classrooms were immediately placed in lockdown for more than two hours, as police scoured the Balmoral and Bramalea area, looking for their suspect.

They found him just after 3pm, and took him into custody, obtaining a warrant to search a home in Bolton. Sixty-two-year-old Erhun Candir was subsequently charged with murder."


http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20041210-011/page.asp

this kind of thing wouldn't happen...My prayers go out to her family...

[WildClarySage]

1. I don't know about guns

but if we had meaningful condemnation and enforced laws against domestic violence, this would go a long way toward the prevention of this type of crime.

[DoNotRefill]

2. That's very true.

Civilized countries, unlike the USA, have strong anti-domestic-violence laws, so this kind of thing doesn't happen there.

[WildClarySage]

4. well.... obviously it did happen in Toronto.

[RebelYell]

3. If it wasn't a gun, it would be his hands around her neck n/t

[billbuckhead]

5. Then she might have escaped instead of being another guncrime

USA, the world's richest large third world nation.

[Columbia]

6. You do know this happened in Canada right?

[DoNotRefill]

7. Dammit....

the jig is up.....


:evilgrin:

[Columbia]

14. Oops

Did I spoil the surprise? Doh! :spank:

[slackmaster]

8. You stepped right into that one, bill

:argh:

[Retired AF Dem]

9. Hopefully

he was wearing high boots. Then again. :)

[Township75]

10. Well, maybe...

he is about to tell us that Canada = the world's 2nd richest large third world nation :eyes:

[billbuckhead]

11. Doesn't change the fact that this happens way more in US than Canada

Just shows the depravity of gunners. Little tricks don't disprove the fact the the USA has way more murder than advanced nations with stronger gun laws and gun regulation enforcement.

[aikoaiko]

12. I always wished teachers were CCW.

The teachers are the first line of defense for the children in schools.

In Georgia, USA, any store owner can have a shotgun under the counter to defend life, but a teacher can't carry a concealed pistol to defend herself or the children around her.

[iverglas]

42. actually, no

The teachers are the first line of defense for the children in schools.

Teachers are educators.

You seem to have got confused somewhere.

[aikoaiko]

43. actually,

the teachers in the US are citizens, unlike most other citizens, who don't get the chance to have a weapon in their places of business to protect themselves or the people around them when a bad guy comes around.

Most the teachers I know take the physical welfare of their children very seriously and many would take a bullet to save a child. I'm not confused. I know teachers who want the same chance to defend their lives and their students' lives as everyone else by being able to carry a concealed weapon.

[iverglas]

44. that's all very well

But if you check the job descriptions of teachers, I don't think you'll find "taking a bullet to save a child". Just like risking one's life is not in most people's job descriptions.

... unlike most other citizens, who don't get the chance to have a weapon in their places of business to protect themselves or the people around them when a bad guy comes around.

I kinda think you're wrong on that one. I kinda suspect that most employers don't allow their employees to walk around with guns in their pants on the job.

And I kinda think that most employers, and employees, are no more paranoid about bad guys coming around their workplaces than any other sane person is.

I know teachers who want the same chance to defend their lives and their students' lives as everyone else by being able to carry a concealed weapon.

I'm sure there are loons in every occupational category, and I don't doubt that there are some loons who are teachers.


Oh, and btw, in view of the actual subject of this thread: perhaps you could explain exactly what a teacher having a firearm might have done to improve the outcome of the situation in question.

[aikoaiko]

45. teachers and guns

Iverglas,

You may be right that many employers may have policies against workers having firearms on their persons. I don't know the statistics.

I was talking about a different issue -- the legality of having a firearm in your possession in your place of business. In the US, it is illegal in most states (if not all) for guns to be on school campuses even by a permitted employee. I'm sure there are exceptions for hired security, and of course, the police, but not, in general, for teachers. In many states, people in their places of business are allowed to posesses firearms to fend for their lives if neccesary. In Georgia, for example, you don't even need a permit to possess a gun in your place of business. Teachers do not get that opportunity. Teachers cannot even leave their defensive weapon in their car.

Had the slain teacher been able to carry a weapon to her place of business (i.e., have it on her person while she went to her car on the school campus), she might have been able to defend herself from the attacker rather than be shot.

[iverglas]

46. what's not to get here?

I was talking about a different issue -- the legality of having a firearm in your possession in your place of business. In the US, it is illegal in most states (if not all) for guns to be on school campuses even by a permitted employee.

So state laws prohibit teachers from having firearms on their persons "in their place of business", i.e. in a school. Got it. The first time.

Teachers are employed by the public, generally in the form of school boards / boards of education. I assume you think that there might a school board someplace that might want to permit its teachers to carry firearms around in its schools, and that the school board is prevented from permitting teachers to do this, by the laws of the superior jurisdiction, the state.

If you really think that there are such school boards, then yup, you have a point. An employer that would otherwise have permitted its employees to carry firearms around their workplace is being prevented from permitting that. That is, there would be such a thing as this "permitted employee" of yours, absent the state legislation.

What I'm seeing is a group of people who happen to be prohibited by state law from carrying firearms around their workplaces, but who would, dollars to doughnuts or pounds to pennies or however you care to wager, be prohibited from doing so by the conditions of employment imposed by their employers anyway.

In Georgia, for example, you don't even need a permit to possess a gun in your place of business.

Teachers do not have a "place of business". They have a workplace.

Are you saying that a clerk in a 7-11 would not require a permit in order to carry a firearm on his/her person (or stash one under the cash register while on shift) in Georgia? I'm betting that the possession of a firearm in a "place of business" that is allowed without a permit is the possession by the business owner of a firearm in that place of business.

I'm mildly curious what rules apply to access to that firearm by employees, but not tremendously, given what little confidence I'd have that they're obeyed. I'll just make a mental note to stay away from Georgia, which won't be difficult anyhow. My trip through there in the spring of 2002, the last of quite a number, was by necessity rather than choice, and I had no plans to return. Gunnuttery is but one of various good reasons to stay out of the vicinity.

Had the slain teacher been able to carry a weapon to her place of business (i.e., have it on her person while she went to her car on the school campus), she might have been able to defend herself from the attacker rather than be shot.

The stupidity that some of you folks seem to attribute to only some people with firearms is always entertaining.

Yes, the estranged husband would likely have walked into the woman's field of vision, done something to attract her attention ("hey you! you'd better watch out, because I'm fixing to aim a gun at you"), and waited while she drew her own piece and shot him first. Or while someone else in the environs did it.

Ye gods and little fishies. And some of you people accuse some of us people of watching too many movies.

[aikoaiko]

47. Maybe you're correct...

...that she would not have saved her life had she been carry a weapon herself. Maybe she would have. You and I don't really know.

I just wish she had a fighting chance.

[iverglas]

48. meaningless babble

I just wish she had a fighting chance.

When an individual intent on killing another person by shooting him/her is not even SEEN by the person targeted, the person targeted could be festooned in firearms and STILL NOT have "a fighting chance".

It is sheer nonsense to claim that merely carrying a firearm provides anyone and everyone with "a fighting chance" against would-be killers in general or any would-be killer in particular, as you seem to be claiming.

Carrying a firearm would NOT have given the victim in this story "a fighting chance", because SHE DID NOT SEE the person who shot her.

Any likely value there might be in generalized public firearms-carrying appears very obviously to be limited to the video-game fantasy when one of those armed madmen starts shooting at crowds of people, and the crowd, or someone in it, puts an end to his rampage by shooting at him.

In this particular incident, the person who did the shooting had no intention other than to kill one specific, identified individual: his estranged wife. There would have been no need for anyone to shoot at him after he had done that, and there was no opportunity for the victim or anyone else to shoot at him before he did it.

If someone had shot at him after he shot his estranged wife, the shooting might well have come within that "reasonable belief" that it was necessary in order to avert injury to someone else -- but reasonable though that belief might have been, it would have been false. He did not intend to, and did not, shoot anyone else -- although he might well have done so had he found someone else shooting at him. So gunfire, and possibly injuries and possibly deaths, would have been escalated and multiplied for no reason.

Since that is, in actual fact, how most people who are shot get shot -- by someone aiming at them and them alone -- and since the people doing the shooting really just are not stupid enough, most of the time, to wear orange jumpsuits and wave their firearms and shout their intentions to the world at large and the victim in particular before pulling the trigger, I'm still not seeing a point.

[aikoaiko]

49. You might be right....

...but I don't know if she saw him or not.

I don't know if he telegraphed his intentions or not.

Unless you know of an eye witness report I don't, then you don't either.

And now, you can have the last word omniscient one.

[iverglas]

50. yeah, silly me

I don't know if he telegraphed his intentions or not.
Unless you know of an eye witness report I don't, then you don't either.

Who knows? Maybe, confident in the assumption that nobody who could see or hear him was carrying a firearm, this guy walked up to his wife in the parking lot, screamed that he was going to kill her, and shot her.

And how would this situation have been different if she had been carrying a firearm?

Well, she might have pulled it out and shot him while he was announcing his intentions.

Or ... he might have just made sure she didn't see him first, and shot her.

Door number two looks, to me, like the one that would be selected by anyone but the utterly and hopelessly stupid among us.

It doesn't actually require omniscience to see that. And I'm quite sure you see it, unless you have those psychedelic specs on. You're always free to take 'em off, of course. You might be surprised at what the real world actually looks like.

[mosin]

53. "festooned in firearms"

When an individual intent on killing another person by shooting him/her is not even SEEN by the person targeted, the person targeted could be festooned in firearms and STILL NOT have "a fighting chance".

I've never seen anyone "festooned" with firearms. I'm imagining a chain of firearms hanging across one's chest. Probably not a practical carry method.

Perhaps one could be bedecked with firearms rather than festooned.

[iverglas]

56. Lullaby, And goodnight,

With plink Rugers bedight.
With Lugers o'erspread
Is my baby's sweet head.

Lay you down now, and rest
May your murder be blessed!
Lay you down now, and rest
May thy murder be blessed!

With apologies to Johann Brahms, whose tune can be heard here:
http://www.hendersonville-pd.org/nurserylullaby.html


"I've never seen anyone 'festooned' with firearms. I'm imagining a chain of firearms hanging across one's chest."

Nor have I, but that's about how I'd picture it too. "Bedecked", I'd see them hanging individually, perhaps on ribbons.

In both cases, when an individual intent on killing another person by shooting him/her is not even SEEN by the person targeted, the person targeted would STILL NOT have "a fighting chance", any more than s/he would have if s/he had a loaded firearm in his/her hand and his/her finger on the trigger, irresponsible and unlaw-abiding as s/he would be to walk around a school parking lot like that.

[mosin]

57. Festooning and bedecking

In both cases, when an individual intent on killing another person by shooting him/her is not even SEEN by the person targeted, the person targeted would STILL NOT have "a fighting chance"

You're right. I don't claim that a concealed handgun makes me invincible or that it would protect me in all circumstances. Neither will a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet, both of which I always wear, and each of which has previously saved my life.

I'll think I'll avoid both festooning and bedecking and stick to carrying concealed in a nice leather Alessi inside-the-waistband holster with a retention strap. It's less ostentatious, but more practical.

[MrSandman]

13. Maybe the depravity of USA...

or is US non-firearm homicide well down? Or does a high non-firearm homicide rate correlate to firearms laws?

I seem to believe that the times that enforcement were brought up, they were dismissed by anti-RKBA folks as "padding statistics" and Repuke disingenuosness. The pro-RKBA folks were mostly all for the enforcement (Do a DU search on Project Exile if you doubt me.).

Little tricks might not disprove anything, but the Freudian slips they evoke kind of shows some agendas.

[Columbia]

15. Depravity?

You mean like this?

"In my prime, I'd beat most of these silly walter mitty gunloving asses heads up and down off the pavement like a basketball."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=64651&mesg_id=64843&page=

[Retired AF Dem]

16. In that thread

There is no question who had the most vision.

[DoNotRefill]

17. Thanks for posting that link....

It was a hoot to go back and read that thread.

/tips his 40 to his dead homies

[billbuckhead]

18. Depravity is using this womens death as sport

Reality is the US has a higher murder rate than any comparable country not at war and the gunworshipping crowd can't prove otherwise. Ireland recently has been chosen as having the highest quality of life in the world. Must be a coincidence that they have one of the lowest gunownership rates.

[DoNotRefill]

22. ROTFLMAO!!!!

"Ireland recently has been chosen as having the highest quality of life in the world. Must be a coincidence that they have one of the lowest gunownership rates."

yup, they're too busy blowing shit up to use guns...BTW, isn't abortion categorically illegal there? Yes indeed, if you want to live in a State where you don't have BASIC rights, you can have a "high quality of life", at least as long as you don't do anything to exercise your basic rights.

"Reality is the US has a higher murder rate than any comparable country not at war and the gunworshipping crowd can't prove otherwise."

It all comes down to how you define "comparable". Since YOU define "comparable" as "any country that has a far lower homicide rate than the US", you're right.

[iverglas]

29. now that we've sorted the US and Canada out

... maybe you could explain this, which you said re Ireland:

yup, they're too busy blowing shit up to use guns

You might want to check a map, and note the border between Ireland and that bit of the United Kingdom sitting up above it. I suspect that you were thinking of the latter, while the post you were replying to was about the former.

BTW, isn't abortion categorically illegal there?

Pretty much. Then there's the US, where anyone who wants pretty much any kind of firearm can get it one way or another, and abortion is theoretically legal, in certain circumstances, but in practice is widely inaccessible to much of the population, due to price and distance and various formal and informal forms of harassment. It's no more difficult for most women in Ireland to obtain an abortion that it is for many women in many parts of the US, you know.

Then there's Canada, where a variety of firearms are available to most of the population virtually without restriction, and abortion is accessible, free of charge, on demand, hassle-free, to almost the entire population.

Hmm.


Since YOU define "comparable" as "any country that has a far lower homicide rate than the US", you're right.

Hey, I'm happy to compare the US to, oh, South Africa and Jamaica, if that's the league you want to play in.

[billbuckhead]

32. Red staters want to live in a third world America

They feel like Great White Hunters driving around in a dangerous red state battlefield in their 3 ton SUV's with their high tech guns and GPS systems.

[iverglas]

33. deleted; see post "Slain Ont. teacher was trying to end marriage"

(posted in wrong place)

[DoNotRefill]

36. Huh?????

"Then there's the US, where anyone who wants pretty much any kind of firearm can get it one way or another, and abortion is theoretically legal, in certain circumstances, but in practice is widely inaccessible to much of the population, due to price and distance and various formal and informal forms of harassment."

Since when has abortion been difficult to get in the US? Even in the "buckle" of the Bible Belt, abortions are easy to get. Yeah, you might get hassled going into one of the "free clinics" (which are low-cost reproductive service providers) but that's why they have "Clinic Escorts" for when the fundies are around. I know....I've served as an escort when Operation Rescue was out being asswipes. The clinics I "escorted" at ran a sliding scale...if you just "showed up", it was around $300 as a "suggested donation", but if you were destitute, it was free, though they'd ask for whatever you could afford to donate afterwards.

As for Ireland, I know the difference between the six counties occupied by the British, and the nation of Ireland. I'm also ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that stuff that goes on in Northern Ireland is coordinated in Ireland proper.

[billbuckhead]

31. Oh here's another gun tragedy only it's in Lutz, Florida

Man Fatally Shoots His Two Children, Critically Wounds Wife Before Killing Himself
LUTZ, Fla. (AP) - A man fatally shot his two children and critically wounded his estranged wife before killing himself in an apparent domestic dispute, deputies said.
Police said Robert O'Mara, 38, confronted his wife, Patricia Parra-Perez, 40, in front of her home in this Tampa suburb late Friday and shot her with a handgun.

Police said O'Mara then fatally shot his 12-year-old son, Sean, as he was running into the home. He chased down and shot his 13-year-old daughter, Lauren, three buildings away as she tried to get help.

Police said O'Mara then fatally shot himself.

<http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBPTTTGM2E.html>
 
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1064325>

BTW, Ireland now has a higher per capita income than most of the red states and almost no crime from guns like those nasty red states have helps Ireland have the world's best quality of life.

[Township75]

19. Interesting...

those that are outraged by US gun violence, don't seem to have a problem with violence in general terms.

That sounds like a quote for a future, or likely current, Million Mom Marcher...I don't think any of their leaders have been arrested for murder in a year or two.

[DoNotRefill]

23. Dude, were you AT the last MMM?

Leaders? What leaders???? There were a couple of hundred people there TOTAL.

[Township75]

25. No, I wasn't there...

Why so few people? Have the rest of their members been put in jail for commiting some violent crime?

[DoNotRefill]

26. Nah....

it's just that all but the really serious kool-aid drinkers know it's a dead issue. The Soccer Moms turned into Security Moms. Well, that and the fact that the MMM is broke, had to let go almost all of their paid staff, has been sued, and got in trouble for basically stealing office space...plus, as you mentioned, the whole "I'm the MMM, and I murdered the wrong guy with a handgun" thing...

[Township75]

27. That's a fine organization, for a fine issue!

I often wonder where all that support for the anti-gun rights movement is...I mean, I hear about it soo much here.

It really doesn't make sense, that if the majority of Americans want stronger gun laws, that the organizations that lobby for more gun control have little to no membership, and are broke.

[billbuckhead]

20. Instead of pavement, I should have said "astroturf"

:)

[DoNotRefill]

28. It wouldn't have mattered...

we know what you mean, and "where you're coming from".

[billbuckhead]

30. And you've proven again you're coming from the land of Astroturf

America's gun situation is nothing less than domestic terrorism. It's no accident that so many people who think guns are always the solution are in a nation engaged in such an injust war.

[Township75]

21. Little tricks also don't disprove...

that the US leads in many forms of death...it's not just limited to guns.

I happen to believe the US culture has a lot more to do with people resorting to murder rather than just some object.

Do you believe the US murder rate would be below that of Canada or Ireland if we matched their gun laws? I don't.

[DoNotRefill]

24. But think about all the abortions it would prevent...

wouldn't that make the anti-gun, anti choice "right to life" crowd happy?

[Left in IL]

58. our guns do not cause the violence

We also have more deaths due to stabbings than "advanced nations with stronger gun laws and gun regulation enforcement."

[JeebusB]

54. Yeah, it would have been so much better if she were stabbed...

bludgeoned, or simply run over.


Obviously, it's the fault of the gun, not the murderous individual.

[iverglas]

55. that's pretty damned silly

"Obviously, it's the fault of the gun, not the murderous individual."

And surely only someone very damned silly would say such a damned silly thing.

What's with some of you rkba-heads, that you want to say such damned silly things?

[iverglas]

34. "Slain Ont. teacher was trying to end marriage"

(I mistakenly posted this the first time in the wrong place in the thread)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102788147646_117/?hub=TopStories

According to the Toronto Sun, Aysegul Candir, 47, decided to end her marriage to Erhun Candir, 62, just over a week ago.

Not many background details seem to be available at this point.

If the woman was aware that her husband was in possession of firearms, she should probably have sought an order that they be forfeited and that he be prohibited from possessing firearms. If the firearm used in the shooting was a handgun, it was almost certainly in his possession illegally.

The fact that it is not easy for the average person in Canada to procure a handgun, legally or illegally, simply cannot be discounted in comparing firearms homicide rates between Canada and the US, just as it cannot be discounted in considering the dramatic drop in the armed robbery rate in Canada in recent years. (I, for instance, would be several degrees of separation removed from access to a handgun illegally; I would have to start with the most unsavoury person with whom I was acquainted, and hope s/he had the right connections, and so on.)

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/12/11/777222.html

"She was so scared of him," said a friend of nearly 20 years, who didn't want his name used.

"She was worried he was watching the high school to see when she came and left. She told me she didn't want him to know where she was living."

... Aysegul Candir's friend said Candir left her troubled marriage a week ago while her husband was vacationing in the couple's native Turkey.

Candir was "treated like garbage" in her marriage, said her friend.

It's possible that cultural factors made it difficult for her to approach authorities for help.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929a.htm

The national homicide rate dropped 7% in 2003. The rate of 1.73 victims per 100,000 people was the lowest in over three decades. The homicide rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s.

Canadian police services reported 548 homicides in 2003, 34 fewer than in 2002. This decline was related to a large drop in the number of females killed (50 fewer compared with 2002). At the same time, there were 16 more male victims. Men accounted for 72% of all victims in 2003.

The unusual situation in British Columbia continues to make year to year comparisons difficult; 6 of the 2003 homicides and 15 of the 2002 homicides occurred in earlier years but are counted in the years when the bodies -- all women, killed by a single serial murderer over a period of several years -- were discovered, so the 2003 to 2002 drop is not as dramatic as it looks. I have never actually heard how those women were killed, but I suspect it was not by firearm, so those deaths would skew the firearm/non-firearm homicide ratio slightly too.

Police reported that one in every seven homicides in 2003 involved organized crime or street gangs. ... Canada's homicide rate was about one-third that of the United States (5.69). It was also lower than England and Wales (1.93), but slightly higher than France (1.65) and Australia (1.63).

Most homicides were committed by someone known to the victim. In 2003, 57 victims (14%) were killed by a stranger—the lowest number in more than 25 years. Half (51%) of all victims were killed by an acquaintance and one-third (34%) by a family member.

The 139 victims killed by a family member represented a large decline from 182 in 2002 and the average of 172 over the previous decade. Most of the decline in family-related homicides was related to non-spousal killings committed by parents, grown children, siblings and extended family members.

The spousal homicide rate declined by 8% in 2003, with six fewer spouses killed. This rate has been gradually declining since the mid-1970s for both men and women. Of the 78 spousal homicides, 64 men killed their wives (including common-law, separated and divorced persons) and 14 women killed their husbands.

Homicides involving other types of intimate partner relationships also dropped, from 17 in 2002 to 11 in 2003. These include homicides committed by boyfriends, girlfriends and current or estranged partners.

Women were much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. Among all solved homicides of victims who were 15 years of age and older, almost two-thirds (64%) of females were killed by someone with whom they had an intimate relationship at one point in time compared with 7% of males.

... There were 161 homicides committed with a firearm, accounting for slightly less than one-third (29%) of all homicides. This was similar to previous years.

The use of rifles/shotguns to commit homicide continued to decline. Rifles/shotguns accounted for 20% of all firearm homicides in 2003 compared with about 40% a decade ago.

There were 109 homicides committed with a handgun in 2003, slightly more than the average over the past decade. Handguns were used in two-thirds of all firearm homicides in 2003 and 59% of all gang-related killings.

I believe there is something approaching 10,000 homicides by handgun in the US per year.

In the US: http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/topics/women/default.htm
(the original sources are cited in the footnotes at that site)

The majority of all women murdered with a gun are killed by their husbands, intimate partners or family members rather than by a stranger or an unidentified intruder.4 A report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that more than twice as many women are shot and killed by their husbands or intimate partners than were murdered by strangers - and that includes strangers using firearms, knives or any other means.5 In 1998, 3,419 females were victims of homicide.6 Thirty-two percent(1,094) of these females were slain by husbands and boyfriends, and handguns were used more often than all other weapons combined (52 percent of murders of women committed in the United States in 1998).7

[skippythwndrdog]

35. Wow, thanks for supporting my position.

You wrote that if the guy used a handgun, he had it illegally. Thanks for supporting my position that gun laws are not obeyed by criminals.

[billbuckhead]

39. Yeah but they're not criminals till they break the law

Speeders don't quit speeding because of laws but law enforcement of speeding laws sure but a dent in their actions. That's why similar EU and Commonwealth nations have such a moral advantage over American gunnutism and our almost anything goes promiscuous weapons regulation that furthermore isn't enforced or funded.

[alwynsw]

37. What? Can it be?

An illegal handgun used in a crime in the northern paradise of strict gun control?

[iverglas]

38. and of course, then there's the actual point

Criminals do "obey" laws ... IF THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

A "criminal" might really like to own a handgun in Canada, but s/he is going to have to FIND one first.

There are indeed handguns in illegal circulation in Canada. (There will be one less, now.) They come almost entirely from two sources: thefts from legal owners in Canada and illegal imports from the US.

So ... where did those "criminals" get their handguns?

From LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS. "Law-abiding gun owners" who either failed to secure their firearms against theft or transferred their firearms to a criminal.

And surely law-abiding people do obey laws, don't they? So, and hold onto your hats here lest you fall over from the surprise, laws that are directed to the law-abiding might be a good idea. Laws like the ones we have here, that require legal owners of firearms to store them securely, and prohibit them from transferring their firearms otherwise than by registered sale to authorized buyers. Those law-abiding gun owners are the ones with something to lose if they get caught breaking laws, and thus an incentive not to do so.

This particular individual was able to obtain a handgun, illegally, apparently. Seems obvious to me, given the very limited supply of handguns available to criminals in Canada, and the strong incentives for non-criminals not to supply them, that there are a whole lot more such individuals who are NOT able to obtain handguns.

A tourist was shot dead on the streets of Canada's capital city a few years ago, by a group of teenagers who had stolen a car and had the great good luck of breaking into a house where there was an illegally stored firearm, and then gone drive-by shooting down the main street, after they were able to legally purchase ammunition for it. (Today, the law having been strengthened, they would be unable to purchase the ammunition: no licence, no ammunition, no dead tourist.) How many of their peers would have loved to do just that, but weren't lucky enough to break into the right house?

And as time goes on, and the currently grandfathered legal owners now in legal possession of some of the firearms in question die and the firearms are removed from circulation (where they are vulnerable to such thefts), there will be fewer handguns available for theft in Canada. (And the numbers of homicides/crimes committed by use of a handgun could be expected to decline -- as the rate of armed robbery has in fact dropped -- depending on whatever supply of handguns via illegal import is available, and on the levels of criminal activity of the sort that creates demand for the product.)

Y'see? That's how REAL firearms control works. You CONTROL ACCESS TO THE FIREARMS, instead of only trying to control how the people who possess them use them. Because, you know, it really is not possible to control anyone's behaviour.

Real firearms control laws don't just punish bad guys for having/using firearms. It makes it difficult for them to obtain firearms.

Punishing bad guys may make the self-righteous finger-pointers feel all warm and fuzzy, but thinking people know that finger-pointing (or minimum sentences, or any other post facto barn-door-closing) really just doesn't do much to prevent a lot of other bad guys from doing the same things. And caring people really do think more about preventing harm from occurring than about pointing a finger at someone for causing it.

Canada's firearms laws have, in undeniable fact, made it increasingly difficult for "criminals" to obtain firearms inside Canada, and in particular the kind of firearms that such people most commonly use to kill and to facilitate the commission of crimes (e.g. robbery): handguns.

There were 84 gang-related homicides in Canada in 2003. Fifty of them were committed with handguns. That's almost half of the 109 firearms-related homicides. Two-thirds of the 109 firearms homicides involved handguns. I would bet a large amount of money that ALL of those handguns were illegally in the possession of the persons who killed with them.

There were 75 or fewer handgun homicides in Canada in 2003, and 50 of them were "gang-related". (I would say with assurance that most of the others were crime-related in some other way.) There were about 25 non-"gang-related" handgun homicides in Canada in 2003. The comparable figure for the US, on a per capita basis, would be 225. Hahaha.

The idea that a single handgun shooting of a woman by her estranged husband in Toronto somehow disproves the effectiveness of Canada's firearms laws is the kind of thing that *I* like to point a finger at. And laugh uproariously.

In my life, I have known of ONE other killing of a woman by her (estranged) partner in which a handgun was used (an incident also in Toronto, a few years ago), and I personally knew ONE person killed with a handgun by her sister's estranged partner (an incident in another Ontario city nearly 20 years ago). I'm sure there have been others. The extensive national media coverage given to the three shootings in question suggest that there just aren't many.

And I really do think that you should abolish all those speed limits in your country. Bad drivers who speed don't obey them, and car crashes happen all the time when bad drivers speed, so all that those laws do is interfere in law-abiding, responsible drivers' ability to go about their own lawful business as they like. Liberty, I say! Choose freedom!

There were 161 FIREARMS HOMICIDES in Canada in 2003. The comparable figure for the US would be about 1450. Hahaha. In 2000, there were about 11,000 FIREARMS HOMICIDES in the US.

If there had been 1200 firearms homicides in Canada last year (i.e. the same firearms homicide rate as in the US -- more than 7 times our actual rate), we would regard it as a national tragedy, a national emergency, a national horror.

There were 387 non-firearms homicides in Canada in 2003. The comparable figure for the US would be about 3500. Given that 64% of homicides in the US were by firearm, the figure for non-firearms homicides in the US in 2000 would be 6,000+ -- less than twice the Canadian rate.

Let's look at the homicide in question. Would it likely have been committed if the estranged husband had not had a firearm? He did not know where his wife lived. His only access to her was in her school parking lot (or if he had been able to follow her as she drove from there). To kill her by any other means, he would have had to succeed in having direct physical contact with her -- meaning she would have had to be unable to run away, and there would have had to be no one present who might intervene.

Gosh, I wonder why he chose a gun.

How 'bout that tourist on the street in Ottawa? Nobody tried to stab or strangle him. With all the civil servants on the street on a weekday noon, that would have been a pretty dangerous undertaking, and not nearly so much fun as shooting from a moving vehicle.

The gang-related killings? The one I can think of was a case of mistaken identity; a man filling his van at a gas station with his kid was shot by a killer for hire who thought he was somebody else. Do we envision a hired killer choking a guy to death at a gas pump? I sure don't. Another recent one in Toronto was the shooting of a driver by a passenger in another car at a red light (also a mistaken identity, as I recall). I guess the passenger could have just hopped out and smashed the car window and stabbed the driver before he figured out what was happening. Not.

Funny how the firearm was just kind of a sine qua non in those cases: no gun, no death.

But really, who cares, eh? We're all gonna die sometime. May as well be from a nice clean gunshot, rather than a lingering death from cancer with no medical insurance.

[Retired AF Dem]

40. I was just wondering about your comment

"failed to secure their firearms against theft" Just how secure is secure? What kind of security is a gun owner supposed to have? Money, jewels, works of art have been stolen from the most secure safes with the best high tech alarm systms man can build. Nothing is really protected from theft if the thief wants it bad enough.

[iverglas]

41. feel free

to investigate the Canadian laws regarding the storage (and transportation) of various types of firearms, if you're so inclined.

I get tired of doing everybody's work for them.

The owner of the firearm with which Nicholas Battersby was shot in Ottawa had not complied with the law. (Very unfortunately and inexplicably, he was not charged.) Having no crystal ball, I can't tell you what would have happened if he had complied with the law.

Money, jewels, works of art have been stolen from the most secure safes with the best high tech alarm systms man can build.

Yes. By your average cokehead / teenager. All the time.


Oh, what the fuck.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-209/whole.html

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,
(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or
(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

STORAGE OF RESTRICTED FIREARMS

6. An individual may store a restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.

STORAGE OF PROHIBITED FIREARMS

7. An individual may store a prohibited firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, and, if the prohibited firearm is an automatic firearm that has a removable bolt or bolt-carrier, the bolt or bolt-carrier is removed and stored in a room that is different from the room in which the automatic firearm is stored, that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of prohibited firearms and that is kept securely locked; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of prohibited firearms and that is kept securely locked.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec84.html

"restricted firearm" means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that
(i) is not a prohibited firearm,
(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;


"prohibited firearm" means

(a) a handgun that
(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,
but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm;

[Wickerman]

51. I need a research assistant

come to the US, make tens of dollars - I like your can do spirit of not wanting to, but eventually doing everyone's work for them. If I had you here doing my research for me, I could spend more time on DU.

[iverglas]

52. yes, but they'd be ...

... tens of *yankee* dollars. Oh wait. That's not such an attraction after all.

You'd be amazed at what I end up using in the real workaday world that I've looked up for someone's edification at DU.

And of course, the vicey versey: the various real-world research over the decades often comes in handy here.

Unfortunately, this week's next little project about ... well, it seems to be refrigeration technology ... isn't likely to be something I can just slip into the conversation. But if I do, just think of how impressed you'll be!

A handy hint for anyone who ever actually does want to find out something about Canadian law: include the word canlii in the search terms. The CanLII site has all Canadian (federal, provincial, territorial) legislation, and Supreme Court and most provincial supreme and appellate court decisions.

So, for instance, asking google for canlii "criminal code" firearms storage is quicker than trying to find a bookmark for the section of the Code and the regs in question. Heh. Look at the top result, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2002/2002scc35.html

4 In the circumstances of this case, where the respondent, as he put it, rapidly set aside and hid his loaded firearms, in a panicked state, intending to retrieve them shortly thereafter, the facts amply support the conclusion that he stored them within the meaning of that section.

5 There are obviously circumstances where a short interruption in the use or handling of firearms would still constitute use or handling rather than storage. In this case, however, the respondent took steps to put away and hide his weapons such that the proper characterization of his actions was that he stored them, albeit temporarily, rather than continue his use and handling of the firearms in plain view of the police.

Try to hide your guns from the cops, and they'll get you with improper storage.

Knowing how to google provides hours of entertainment, and is the key to living well. ;)

[cms]

59. He just would have stabbed her instead...

What makes you think that if he didn't have a gun he would have just given up and said "O I guess I'm not going to kill her because I dont' have a gun." Some of you people fail to get it...


My prayers go out to her as well.

[iverglas]

60. failing to get it

... although congrats on dragging it up.

What makes you think that if he didn't have a gun he would have just given up and said "O I guess I'm not going to kill her because I dont' have a gun."

Hmm. Hmm.

How about the fact that his only access to her (since he did not know where she lived) was in a public place, where there were other people present, and that he would have had to get within arm's reach of her without her or anyone else who knew the problem noticing him coming and without her drawing anyone else's attention to his presence, and he would have had to manage to fatally stab her despite the resistance she might have been expected to put up, and the chances of her surviving a knifing intended to be fatal are a fair bit better than her surviving a gunshot intended to be fatal, and the chances of him getting apprehended while committing the act or after committing it would have been higher, and the chance of him getting injured or even killed in the process of attempting the killing would have been infinitely higher (any multiple of zero that you might like) than of this happening when he fired a gun from a distance with no one knowing he was there ... and shall I go on?

Maybe just how about the fact that he picked a firearm and not a knife? Surely he had *some* reason for his decision.

Of course, I don't actually think you fail to get anything. I don't start out from the assumption that my interlocutors are morons.

[MrSandman]

61. Like ?whoever? gave ip on Nicole Brown...nt

[iverglas]

63. I give ip

I guess we're trying some of that reasoning by analogy.

estranged husband is to Nicole Brown
as
estranged husband is to Aysegul Candir


Oops. Not quite.

In the Aysegul Candir column, we have:
- his only access to her (since he did not know where she lived) was in a public place, where there were other people present.

In the Nicole Brown column, we have ... oops, not that.

In the Aysegul Candir column, we have:
- he would have had to get within arm's reach of her without her or anyone else who knew the problem noticing him coming and without her drawing anyone else's attention to his presence (if he had used a knife in a public place where there were other people present)

In the Nicole Brown column, we have ... oops, not that.

In the Aysegul Candir column, we have:
- the chances of him getting apprehended while committing the act or after committing it would have been higher (if he had used a knife in a public place where there were other people present)

In the Nicole Brown, we have ... oops, not that.

In fact, in the Nicole Brown column, we have:
- using a firearm might have increased the chances of him being apprehended, since he did his killing stealthily and a firearm would have drawn attention to the scene.

Nobody ever said that a firearm was the perfect tool for every job, you know.

Now, in the Nicole Brown column, we have:
- a large, very physically fit, physically well-trained assailant (trained if not in combat methods per se, which I'd suspect, at least in professional football, which is not far off), taking two individuals by complete surprise, in the dark, in an isolated location.

Under the Aysegul Candir column, we have: ... well, I don't actually know for sure ... here's the best I can do:

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20041213-010/page.asp

Ehrun Candir, a 62-year-old Bolton resident,
made his second court appearance on Monday,
charged with first degree murder charges in
the death of his wife.

Hmm. Not a very athletic looking specimen, a little old, and 15 years older than his victim. He "purportedly" worked as an Air Canada flight simulator instructor.

But look -- serendipitously, on that same page, links from today's news:

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050119-016/page.asp
"Knives Become New Weapon Of Choice"

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050119-018/page.asp
"Knives Proliferate In G.T.A. Crimes"
It reviews 29 incidents (by my quick count) of knife assaults in Toronto in the last 6 months. Four of them (and they are "some", evidently not all, of the incidents of knife assaults) involved fatal injuries (and I do assume that Pulse24 would have included all homicides in its descriptions). None of them involved someone throwing a knife across a parking lot, I'm afraid.

[MrSandman]

64. I am enjoying my tangetial thinking...nt

[Billy Ruffian]

62. astonishing

assumes the shot wasn't from close range.

assumes knife wounds are less lethal than bullet wounds

assumes he couldn't get away after stabbing as easily as he did after making a very loud bang and attracting attention.

but I forget ... if only all guns were locked up, no one would get hurt.

[iverglas]

65. ass u, not me

assumes the shot wasn't from close range.

I didn't assume shit. I read the news reports. They say that he "confronted" her. They don't say that he "tussled with her" or "struck her". He may indeed have been at close range; I didn't actually say he wasn't. But with a firearm, he was still able to assault her without risking having having his weapon used against him, or risking her avoiding serious injury by fighting back or escaping his grip, etc., and it's unlikely he was at a range as close as he would have had to be to stab her.

assumes knife wounds are less lethal than bullet wounds

Assume it if you like. You'd be right. I know because I didn't assume it, I've read the research. Find it yourself, if you like, or find something to counter it.

assumes he couldn't get away after stabbing as easily as he did after making a very loud bang and attracting attention.

Yeah, that's a bit of an assumption. I'm assuming that few people would be interested in pursuing someone who has a gun and isn't afraid to use it. Fewer people than might pursue someone with a knife, anyhow. You can pursue someone who has a knife in a group, and prevail upon him/her by strength of numbers to stay put. You can even pursue someone who has a knife without getting close enough to get hurt, say even by following his/her car. You might not be wise to do any of that in the case of someone with a gun.

Since there is a description of what happened in the parking lot, I'm also assuming that there were witnesses. Witnesses who might have noticed someone physically struggling with a victim as would be likely to happen if s/he were wielding a knife, or a victim crying out for help as would be likely to happen if s/he were wielding a knife. Not certain, of course. The assailant might really have been able to just get up close and personal, stab, and wander off.

but I forget ... if only all guns were locked up, no one would get hurt.

You should try to write your dreams down as soon as you wake up, and that way you might remember them more easily when you need them.

[Billy Ruffian]

66. lots of assumptions in that last post n/t

[cms]

67. What...were all of the...

children in the classroom going to stop him? Yes, he probably picked the gun because it probably seemed to be the easiest way to kill her, but thats not the point. We have the right to own that guna and that right isn't going anywhere. You still can't tell me that he wouldn't have committed that if absolutely no firearms were available.

[iverglas]

68. I can't tell you that you won't be struck by lightning in 5 sec.

You still can't tell me that he wouldn't have committed that if absolutely no firearms were available.

Of course, I didn't tell you anything like that, so allow me to congratulate you on the fine straw fella you have constructed.

I tell you that, in my opinion based on the facts and my assessment of them, it is very unlikely that this individual would have killed the victim if he had not had a firearm.

We have the right to own that guna and that right isn't going anywhere.

The individual in question had no right whatsoever to own the "guna" in question. He was prohibited from possessing a firearm without a permit, and in particular from possessing a handgun without a permit. He had not obtained a permit to possess a handgun. He was prohibited from carrying any firearm around in public without a permit. He had not obtained a permit to carry a firearm around in public. He had acquired the handgun in some illegal manner, because it was illegal for him to acquire it without the appropriate permit and without registering his ownership of it (and it was illegal for any owner of it to put it in his temporary possession). Any right he might have to do anything is subject to the limitations placed on the exercise of that right by valid law, and it makes no sense whatsoever to say that someone has a right to do something that s/he is prohibited by valid law from doing. And I assure you that the laws in question are all valid.

I very much hope that some effort is put into determining exactly how he did acquire the firearm he used. It was at some point, necessarily, in the possession of someone who possessed it legally. Someone, or some ones, committed crimes in order for it to come into his possession. If their identity/ies can be determined, and what they did can be proved, I want them prosecuted.

What...were all of the... children in the classroom going to stop him?

Does no one read?

She was not in a classroom. She was in a parking lot. The people in elementary school parking lots generally are adults.

Yes, he probably picked the gun because it probably seemed to be the easiest way to kill her, ...

It may in fact have been the ONLY way to kill her. In some instances, a firearm very definitely is the only way to kill someone. In other instances, the presence of a firearm is the factor without which one person would not have decided to kill another. (And if you choose not to acquire the knowledge you need in order to assess the accuracy of that statement, that's not my problem. I have it. I have actually studied homicides for pay.)

... but that's not the point.

And that all depends on who's on the end of the point ... and at the end of the barrel of that gun. I believe you are saying that it is not the point in your opinion. The opinion of the person at the end of the barrel of the gun, or at risk of being there, may vary.

[cms]

69. In your country...

he may not have had the right to own that firearm, but in the U.S. he would have (unless he had a criminal background). That just goes to show that anti-firearms legislation does nothing to stop firearms crime. Even countries with the most strict firearms laws in the world still have firearms crimes.


Whats to say that he couldn't have run her over with a car, stabbed her with a knife, beat her with a pipe, or strangled her with a rope? You make it sound as if the gun is to blame. Any tool can be used as a weapon, and weapons are just tools. I bet you that many more Canadians have died on your highways than by firearms. Do you advocate the banning of vehicles? Start riding you bike to work?

[iverglas]

70. bully

In your country...
he may not have had the right to own that firearm, but in the U.S. he would have

And unless he were in a few odd places in your country, he would not have had the "right" to be promenading around with it in his pants in public.

I am completely failing to see what your comments have to do with any point in issue here.

That just goes to show that anti-firearms legislation does nothing to stop firearms crime. Even countries with the most strict firearms laws in the world still have firearms crimes.

Good lord. Has homicide been eliminated in those death-penalty states of yours without my noticing it?

Whats to say that he couldn't have run her over with a car, stabbed her with a knife, beat her with a pipe, or strangled her with a rope?

Do I have to keep repeating myself?

What's to say you're not going to be struck by lightning in the next five seconds?

Nothing at all, right? Nonetheless, we might both say that it is extremely unlikely that this will happen, based on the facts we know and our assessment of them.

My opinion that it is unlikely that he would have done any of the things you propose is based on the facts I know and my assessment of them.

If it is your opinion that it is likely that he would have done any of those things (and I don't know what your opinion is), that opinion would appear *not* to be based on the facts, or to be based on a quite unreasonable assessment of them.

You make it sound as if the gun is to blame.

You make it sound as if you cannot read and/or comprehend what other people say, or as if, despite having read and understood it, you prefer to represent it as something other than it is.

People are to blame for things people do. There is often enough blame to go around to more than one person. In this case, there is blame to be assigned to whoever provided the individual in question with the firearm he used to kill the victim.

You make it sound as if you want someone to believe I am an idiot. Fortunately, your effort is pretty transparent and silly.

I bet you that many more Canadians have died on your highways than by firearms.

That's indeed so. And gosh, I wonder whether it just might have something to do with the relative absence of firearms (about 1 for every 4 Canadians) and the relative stringency of the laws governing their possesison and use (all "relative" as compared to cars).

Walked right into that one, did you?

Of course, I'm sure that it also has something to do with the relative frequency of individuals' contacts with cars in situations where there is the potential for death, as compared to such contacts with firearms.

How many people in the US have died of that mad cow stuff? And yet amazingly, the US still prohibits imports of beef from countries where it is a risk.

Do you advocate the banning of vehicles?

Do you people never tire of making yourself look like disingenuous simpletons?

Since I don't advocate the banning of firearms, I fail to take your point in any event. Were you talking to that figment of someone's imagination who seems to visit here so regularly?

I advocate registration of the ownership of motor vehicles and licensing of drivers. Damn, oddly enough, I advocate the same thing when it comes to firearms. I advocate limits on, and mandatory requirements in respect of, the manner in which motor vehicles may be possessed and used. And damn again, I advocate the same thing when it comes to firearms. Anything else you'd like to know?

[cms]

71. This is fun...

You tell me that my comments doesn't have anything to do with the point, and then in the next few lines shift the topic to the death penalty. I ask you, whats that have to do with the point? Whine all you want in this thread or the next, but we're keeping our guns. If guns were ever to be completely banned on this earth, the citizens of the US would be the last ones to have them... and if our government required us to turn in our guns, there would be a revolution. You may not understand, not being a native American and all, but I'll repeat it again. The right for me to own any firearm I wish is just as valid as my right to speak, have a fair trial, or walk down the street. Since I will never have a criminal record, I will have this right until my death. Call me a gunwacko or a militant or whichever term you prefer, but I will call out anyone who suggests that taking away my rights is better for me.

Before I forget, I have never named any of my firearms like some owners have, but I think I'll dedicate my most recent AR-15 build to you. I'll call it Iverglas. Can anyone host a pic? :P

[iverglas]

72. christalfuckingmighty

The intellectual level of this forum just continues to rise with every new addition.

You tell me that my comments doesn't have anything to do with the point, and then in the next few lines shift the topic to the death penalty.

Reasoning by analogy, the sign of a child who has reached the final level of thinking ability.

IF:

That just goes to show that anti-firearms legislation does nothing to stop firearms crime. Even countries with the most strict firearms laws in the world still have firearms crimes.

-- what you said -- is a reason not to have firearms control legislation, THEN you could pick ANY FUCKING LEGISLATION YOU LIKE and say that it does nothing to stop whatever crime it is intended to deter, because THOSE CRIMES ARE STILL COMMITTED, and so there is no reason to have it.

I.e., anti-homicide legislation does nothing to stop homicide.

If you are claiming that there is something special and unique about firearms control legislation in this respect -- that IT does not stop firearms crime but other legislation does stop the crimes it is meant to stop -- well, how 'bout you give me an example?

Not even a law that provides for that ultimate penalty -- death -- seems to have wiped out homicide, to date.

You just don't get to evaluate firearms control legislation by standards that you do not apply to any other legislation.

If your point is "laws don't stop people from doing things" and you are *not* going to rely on that point to advocate that there be no laws about anything at all, then you MUST establish a relevant difference between firearms control laws and all other laws if you are going to advocate that there be no laws about firearms. Do note that I said a relevant difference, which doesn't mean the second amendment! the second amendment!

Whine all you want in this thread or the next, but we're keeping our guns. If guns were ever to be completely banned on this earth, the citizens of the US would be the last ones to have them... and if our government required us to turn in our guns, there would be a revolution. You may not understand, not being a native American and all, but I'll repeat it again. The right for me to own any firearm I wish is just as valid as my right to speak, have a fair trial, or walk down the street. Since I will never have a criminal record, I will have this right until my death. Call me a gunwacko or a militant or whichever term you prefer, but I will call out anyone who suggests that taking away my rights is better for me.

And blah de fuckin blah blah blah.

Before I forget, I have never named any of my firearms like some owners have, but I think I'll dedicate my most recent AR-15 build to you. I'll call it Iverglas.

And since I have no doubt you will -- incorrectly -- pronounce it eye-vur-glass, I won't feel very honoured at all.

Besides, DoNotRefill already named his baby after me, so it's all been done already.

[cms]

73. "And blah de fuckin blah blah blah" -- you're right...

"And blah de fuckin blah blah blah"

You're right...the intellectual level of this forum really does increase with each addition!

:mad: <------ Iverglas

:nopity: Do you hear that little violin...its playin your tune.



ROTFLMAO!!!

[iverglas]

75. it's almost Friday

award time.

For failing to make it through the week without getting stuck in the old

http://winace.andkon.com/pics

Yessirreebob. Firearms control legislation doesn't stop the criminal use of firearms. Laws against homicide don't stop people from killing people. Speed limits don't stop speeding. No-parking signs don't stop parking and no-trespassing signs don't stop trespassing. And heck, the 10 commandments don't stop a lot of folks from bearing false witness. To the dust heap of history with all of 'em!

[cms]

77. Yes but...

I never advocated getting rid of all laws which may be ineffective some of the time. Laws against homicide, speeding, and illegal parking don't negatively effect law abiding citizens. Neither do most firearms laws. Firearms control is where you cross the fine line though.

For example, say the assault weapons ban was still in effect with the government trying to control assault weapons. Me and all of the other law abiding citizens did not violate this law. We went out and paid 150%-200% more than the weapons true value for a "preban". We were getting gouged, while anyone who wanted to could illegally convert a "postban" into a firearm with "preban" features. This person would then become a criminal for doing so. Criminals don't follow the laws...thats why they're called criminals.

Homicide can't really be used fairly in this argument because it is "Malum in Se". If the law forbidding murder were to disappear today, the murder rate among law abiding citizens would not go up much, if at all.

Malum prohibitum crimes such as speeding, illegal parking, smoking dope, and violating firearms laws are in a separate category.

[iverglas]

78. blah de blah

Laws against homicide, speeding, and illegal parking don't negatively effect law abiding citizens. Neither do most firearms laws. Firearms control is where you cross the fine line though.

Sure, let's dance the speeding dance one more time.

I am a law-abiding individual who owns a car. And yet I am prohibited from driving at certain speeds in certain circumstances. Even though I do no harm to anyone when I drive at 140 km/h on the highway, I'm breaking a law and can be punished. The law makes me a criminal.

Let's say I am a law-abiding individual who owns a firearm. I am prohibited from transferring that firearm to anyone without registering the transfer. Even though I do no harm to anyone when I transfer my firearm, I'm breaking a law and can be punished. The law makes me a criminal.

Looks like the same damned thing to me.

Never mind arguing against your assault weapons "ban" at me. I think it was moronic. A "ban" on something that includes a grandfathering provision and allows transfers of the grandfathered thing is a waste of time. So whining to me about how much it cost you to get one of them won't work. I say: if it's banned, it's banned. Grandfathering is all very well, in many cases, but tranference of grandfathered rights, particularly when they are legion, makes a mockery.

We went out and paid 150%-200% more than the weapons true value for a "preban". We were getting gouged ...

That's one way of looking at it. The other is that you were paying what you evidently thought was a fair price (else why would you pay it??) for your little bit of adolescent rebellion. Did someone force you to buy a "preban", btw?

Homicide can't really be used fairly in this argument because it is "Malum in Se".

And you're going to have to come up with some argument that makes this a relevant distinction. Quite apart from it being pretty much a matter of opinion. I think fibbing is malum in se, don't you?

Your argument was that the legislation is ineffective to stop the conduct it prohibits (an unproved premise, of course) and therefore should be eliminated (or not adopted). I fail to see what the inherently evil or not-inherently evil nature of the act being proscribed has to do with that argument.

[cms]

80. I slightly agree...

With the fact that you may not be doing any harm speeding, even though its against the law, but the example you gave for firearms is just a law. Registrations is a law. I said crossing the line to control is where it is not right or constitutional. I'm a firm believer of firearms laws, but when a gun law forbids me from owning a certain "type" of firearm, it becomes gun control.

Nobody forced me to buy a preban, but I want the features of a preban. My girlfriend enjoys shooting my AR-15 and the adjustable stock is perfect for switching between adults and women/children. I don't have to worry about those high prices anymore though...no more ban!

By saying that homicide is malum in se, I was trying to relay that if all of the laws in the world were to suddenly vanish, people would not kill other people just because its not legal. An individual is being physically harmed. While telling a lie could have potentially negative physical side effects (such as getting beaten up or even murdered in rare cases), most of the time you are not doing anyone physical harm.

Just my $ .02

[iverglas]

81. that's so cute

the adjustable stock is perfect for switching between adults and women/children.

Over here, folks, we have the adults. And over there on the other side of the fence, we have women.

Sheesh. What would Mr. Freud have to say about all this? Slip showing at all?

Nobody forced me to buy a preban, but I want the features of a preban.

And bully for you. But it just seems to me that if you found a willing vendor at Price X, and you were a willing purchaser at Price X, your complaints about "gouging" are a little hollow. Not even to mention the fact that your complaint would seem better addressed to the vendor than to anyone else. Imagine, exploiting people who want guns like that. Vicious, nasty people they are.

Really. The gummint didn't tell the vendor what to charge you, and the gummint didn't tell you what you had to pay, and in fact you just didn't have to pay anything at all. Hollow whining is all I hear, I'm afraid. I'll save my tears for tenants being gouged by slum landlords, and workers being exploited by WalMart, if you don't mind.

I'm a firm believer of firearms laws, but when a gun law forbids me from owning a certain "type" of firearm, it becomes gun control.

Well, that may be your own pet definition of "gun control", but it isn't anybody else's that I'm aware of. Try here:
http://www.guncontrol.ca
and I think you'll find rather a broader range of issues being addressed, concerns stated and policies advocated.

I'm all in favour of laws forbidding people to own certain "types" of firearms (in jurisdictions in which my opinion matters, but of course), at least to the extent that the laws my jurisdiction now has does that, which isn't actually what they do, but close enough.

But I'm very particularly in favour of laws forbidding people to possess firearms without a licence, and laws forbidding people to engage in transfers of firearms without registering them, and laws forbidding people to promenade around in public with firearms on their persons or in their vehicles, and laws forbidding people to store firearms in a way that leaves them accessible to children, intruders or other unauthorized persons, and too readily accessible to the owner in the event of a fit of pique.

And all of that is quite properly called "gun control". So when you associate moi and "gun control", I'm sure you'll refrain from calling me a "gun-banner", since that is neither an accurate characterization (given as how it doesn't necessarily mean "particular limited classes of gun-banner") nor the most representative characterization of my position.


By saying that homicide is malum in se, I was trying to relay that if all of the laws in the world were to suddenly vanish, people would not kill other people just because its not legal. An individual is being physically harmed. While telling a lie could have potentially negative physical side effects (such as getting beaten up or even murdered in rare cases), most of the time you are not doing anyone physical harm.

You can hone those criteria to a fine point, and ultimately nothing in the world will be "like" anything else in the world. One identical twin will not be "like" his/her twin, because despite the identical DNA and height and weight and eye colour and facial characteristics etc. etc., one has a healed tibia fracture and the other doesn't.

Here, you've got so far from the point that even I am lost.

You appear to be making my point: laws do not stop people from doing things they would not do anyway, and laws do not stop people from doing things if they decide to do them. The presence of a law may be a reason why some people decide not to do something, so it's probably worth keeping around if we want people not to do it.

But my point remains: calling for a law to be eliminated because it does not stop all people from doing what it prohibits is ludicrous. Unless you have evidence that it does not cause any people to decide not to do it, which I don't think you have.

The trick in many situations is to aim the law at people for whom the presence of the law is the sufficient factor for them to decide not to do what it prohibits. "Law-abiding gun owners" oughta be just that kind of people, no? So if "law-abiding gun owners" are prohibited from transferring their firearms without registering the transfer (which means that they may not transfer their firearms to people who do not have licences to possess them) -- or from storing their firearms unsafely, for example -- then we might expect at least some reasonable proportion of those law-abiding folks not to do what the law prohibits them from doing -- although, in the absence of the law, they might have done it.

And we might expect the number of firearms that make their way into the hands of persons not authorized to possess them to be reduced. And we might then expect the nefarious things that some people who are not authorized to possess firearms would have done with them, had they had them, to be reduced.

Car thefts are reduced when law-abiding car owners are required to remove their keys from the ignitions of their parked cars. (Stolen cars are disproportionately involved in crashes, so reducing car theft is a good thing.) Car owners are committing no malum in se when they leave their keys in the ignition, but if they do so there is an increased probability of harm occurring. People with a brain cell and a bit of decency obey the law.

That's what you might call "car control". Kinda like "gun control", eh?

[cms]

83. But I'm not supporting the repeal of all laws that don't...

stop crime. The anti's are the ones fighting the uphill battle. I'm fighting to prevent new gun control from being passed through congress. I'm tickled pink that the Crime Bill has expried, and I doubt that another "assault weapons" ban will ever be passed again.

I've realized a while back that this argument isn't going to get anywhere...so we can call it a draw. Not trying to impose my opinions onto you, but if you're even in the states try going to a range that rents firearms and try shooting a semiautomatic rifle. You'll be surprised at how fun it is. My dad was anti-AW up until I bought my first two. Now he has his own.

[Billy Ruffian]

85. Firearms storage question

Iverglas writes:

But I'm very particularly in favour of laws forbidding people to possess firearms without a licence, and laws forbidding people to engage in transfers of firearms without registering them, and laws forbidding people to promenade around in public with firearms on their persons or in their vehicles, and laws forbidding people to store firearms in a way that leaves them accessible to children, intruders or other unauthorized persons, and too readily accessible to the owner in the event of a fit of pique.

I'd like to ask for amplification on that last.

It seems to me that this would require that a gun ALWAYS be secure, except when in actual use, such as while hunting or at a target range. It also seems that this would prohibit a gun owner from using a gun for self defense. If I can't get to my firearm in a fit of pique, then I can't get to it in an emergency, either. Also, how do you define too readily accessible? one minute to obtain access, 10 minutes, one hour?

A firearm in a steel cabinet, locked with a padlock, could be accessed in less than a minute, I would think. Is that too accessible?

All my firearms save one are locked up, but I can get to them in about 15 seconds, in the dark (I've tried.) I carry one on my person or within reach at all times. That would be prohibited under laws you would support, correct?

Do laws you support allow use of a firearm in self defense?

Thanks,

[Billy Ruffian]

88. Bump.

any reply?

[iverglas]

89. and how many times shall I reply?

... laws forbidding people to store firearms in a way that leaves them accessible to children, intruders or other unauthorized persons, and too readily accessible to the owner in the event of a fit of pique.
I'd like to ask for amplification on that last.

My suggestion is that you get yourself a gold star, or ask a buddy who has one to do the work for you, instead of complaining, on a weekend, that I am not jumping to do your bidding. But I'm too nice:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=92848#93211

iverglas (1000+ posts)
Tue Nov-16-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #58
66. here ya go

"Every situation is different. Since you brought it up, just what is not readily accessible to unauthorized persons?"

This will do for me for now:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-209/whole.html
(there's stuff in there about restricted weapons, like handguns, that is more stringent, but these are the basics)

FIREARMS ACT
Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

...

Do laws you support allow use of a firearm in self defense?

Sure. If one is in a situation in which one is in lawful possession of a firearm, and in which one satisfies all the criteria one must satisfy in order for one's use of any particular form/level of force to be excused as self-defence -- which goes like this where I'm at, and roughly the same way in most places in the US:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec34.html

Criminal Code
PART I
Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

-- then it matters little how one effects the purpose.

But being entitled to use something simply does not mean being entitled to leave it lying around where children or burglars have access to it, or being entitled to tote it around in public.

The risk that the firearm leaning against the wall or nestled in the bedside table, even while one is present in the home (and even when one is conscious), will be used for something other than self-defence simply outweighs the risk of a situation occurring in which the firearm owner needs it for self-defence. If one is that fretful about needing to defend one's self in one's home, one has the option of steel doors and barred windows, which are not known to be useful tools for injuring or killing other people if used by someone other than the intended user and/or for purposes other than the owner's proclaimed purpose.

If you feel the need to have ready access to a firearm while in a public place, I guess all I'd say is: better stay home. It is an unacceptable risk to public safety, in a variety of ways, for people to be wandering around in public places with firearms on their person. And nobody's forcing anybody to step out the front door into that big dangerous world out there, right?

Me, I don't feel safe out unless I have 3 tigers at my side. I'm pretty sure I can stop anybody who tries to take one away from me and use it to terrorize his/her spouse or local 7-11. And I'd never take them out if I weren't sober as a judge, and I never lose my temper and do something I shouldn't. Trust me.

[Billy Ruffian]

91. Thank you for the reply

my bump was to help me re-locate the thread.

I'm very glad that the firearms laws that I am subject to are not the ones you are subject to.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you are a gun grabber.

[iverglas]

92. any time

given how I do answer the same questions over and over any time anybody asks. Not that anybody generally bothers asking, so kudos to you, I guess. Not that you seem to have been genuinely interested, but oh well.

I'm very glad that the firearms laws that I am subject to are not the ones you are subject to.

And I echo that sentiment wholeheartedly, mutatis mutandis.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you are a gun grabber.

My goodness gracious.

And this is your conclusion from a post that had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's entitlement to possess firearms, or the kinds of firearms that anyone is entitled to possess.

I conclude that you are psychic. Can you please tell me where I put the videotape with the first episode of Newsworld's Death on the Staircase on it? I've got the other episodes and can't watch them because I can't find the first one, and that's annoying.

Oh wait. On second thought, you'd probably tell me that it's gone to London to have visit the Queen. A psychic, just not a good one.

[Billy Ruffian]

74. Iverglas

And since I have no doubt you will -- incorrectly -- pronounce it eye-vur-glass, I won't feel very honoured at all.

So, how do you pronounce it? Smith? Chomdley? Featherstonehaugh?

[iverglas]

76. well if I told you that

there'd apparently be a firearm somewhere in the vicinity answering to my name. I don't mind somebody's baby doing it, but guns -- or dogs or snowmobiles or much of anything else -- I'm not so sure.

It derives from the French word for something we don't have a word for, the ice that stays on stuff after a freezing rain storm: verglas. With an "i" stuck on the front, as in "I, Claudius". Except that when pronounced as it would be in the French, it also contains the French word for "winter": hiver, making it a bit of a play on words (hi/ver/glas), something like the winter festival held in Canada's Capital called Winterlude (I know you get it, but W/inter/lude). Like those Wheel of Fortune things: coming round the /mountain/ dew.

So if you speak French or know how things are pronounced in French, bob's yer uncle. And for sure just reading my name will now be even more annoying than it was before. ;)

[Billy Ruffian]

79. More annoying?

Not possible. :evilgrin:

[Romulus]

87. I thought it had something to do with Ireland?

:shrug:

And the River Moy?

Oh, well . . .

[iverglas]

90. the river in Ireland

"Iverglas" is apparently an ancient name for the river. I discovered this after inventing the word for my own use. The net doesn't offer any info about the source/meaning of the name, unfortunately.

Old Feuds

The Annals have many references to Shrule from the coming of the Nomans <Normans?> down to comparatively modern times, and long before Bingham operated it was a place of note. In 1262 0'Conor Sligo plundered the foreigners from Balla and Mayo of the Saxons to Shrule, burned towns and cornfields, slaying many and getting their demands, and in the following year the 0'Donnells ravaged the territory of Clanricarde returning home by Shrule, Ballinrobe and Tirawley, having obtained all their demands. It may seem strange to have them returning home by Tirawley, but I have an old account which says they sailed home from the Moy, which had then another name. ...

... In 1377 the chiefs were constantly at each other's throats, and in the following year Sligo chieftains pooled forces to have a resounding blow at the Burkes of Mayo, and wrought great destruction in a campaign that occupied seven months. The 0'Connors, MacDonoghs, 0'Haras and 0'Dowdas seem to have had the best of it. The Annalists say that they burned MacWilliam's country from Carnglass to the borders of Umhall. This is taken to be the barony of Tirawley, Iverglas being an ancient name for the River Moy. ...

I may be related to the Barons/Viscounts of Ballytrammon (a title that seems to have died out when Ireland became independent), but Ballytrammon and the Moy don't seem to be related.

[Billy Ruffian]

86. Fatal knifing, in public

http://www.kfsm.com/global/story.asp?s=2840280&ClientType=Printable

Happened in a public place, with other people present, in arms reach of the victim, obviously drew attention to his presence, fatally stabbed his victim in spite of her resistance and the resistance of bystanders.

No mention of whether he was apprehended. The fact that the name of the attacker is known could have been from the auto registration.

[Paleocon]

82. Yeah, he couldn't have killed her any other way...

Better to blame the gun...

:crazy:

[iverglas]

84. well ...

Better to blame the gun...

If you really want to do that, I can't really stop you, eh?